LOL to anyone who thinks there is actually some sure fire way to accurately measure the age of something thousands of + years old.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 15526347

If you don't know its age how can you say it's "thousands of years old"?

DUH!

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 17131873

Hmm let me take a guess, scientists engage in a lot of supposition, and make sure they only get "evidence" that supports their suppositions? Nah can't be, scientists are super intelligent super men who never engage in such human foibles.

This is a very interesting concept. I agree... the fact that they "CLAIM" to be able to know the age of something thousands and millions of years old... based on science that is barely 100 years old... is quite a claim.

I don't care what they say... if you really think about it.... it makes no sense whatsoever.

If a large cosmic-ray bombardment impacted the earth and irradiated the prehistoric landscape with thermal neutrons, the 235 U/238 U ratio would be changed; 239 Pu would be produced from neutron capture on 238 U, followed by the decay of 239 U. Neutrons colliding with nitrogen (1.83 barns) would create 14 C in exactly the same way 14 C is normally produced in the upper atmosphere, necessarily resetting the radiocarbon dates of any organic materials lying near the surface on the North American prehistoric landscape—including charcoals at Paleoindian sites—to younger values. 239 Pu produced during the bombardment will also be partly destroyed by thermal neutrons with 1017 barn cross section. Assuming 239 Pu doesn’t mobilize, it will decay back to 235 U (half-life 24,110 yr), partially restoring the normal abundance. [link to abob.libs.uga.edu]